Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (8) TMI 745 - SUPREME COURTChallenged the Grant of bail order - Non-application of mind by High Court in bail order -Offence punishable under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') - HELD THAT:- There is no definition of the word 'Bail' in the Code, although offences are classified as 'Bailable' and 'Non-Boilable'. Section 2(a) defines 'Bailable Offence' to mean an offence which is known as bailable in the first schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force and "Non-Boilable Offence" means any other offence. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As noted above, at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated. Above being the position, the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court, is clearly indefensible. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The bail bonds of the respondent No. 2 - accused are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to custody forthwith and in case he does not do so it shall be the duty of the respondent No. 1 - State to take him to custody immediately. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that after charge-sheet is placed and/or charge is framed, the accused shall move for bail afresh. If it is so done, it goes without saying the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law, about which we express no opinion. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
|